Romancefest 13: Splendor in the Grass

This is my second Natalie Wood movie of the month and my second Elia Kazan movie since yesterday. Originally I wasn't going to watch SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS this month since I've seen parts of it before, but I took a second though and realized I'd never sat down to watch the whole thing, and decided to go for it.

I remember catching it on one of the movie channels in college, already in progress, and being impressed with the frankness of the sexual relationship between the two teenage characters. I remembered them being insanely horny and the whole movie being about this intense relationship. Upon second viewing, the second half kind of moves away from that aspect and into other things, and the really heated up scenes aren't quite as hot as I remember (Natalie Wood's bath tub melt down not withstanding).

Still, SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS is not exactly the tale it pretends to be. Based on the title, taken from a Wordsworth poem, we're supposed to believe the movie is about looking back on good times and being glad about them instead of regretful of missed opportunities. But it's clear that this movie is about gender, sex and generation gaps.

Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood star as a high school couple constantly on the verge of having sex, but always holding back because of what they think others might think of them. It's late 1920s Kansas. Beatty has an oil tycoon father (Pat Hingle) who suggests Beatty get his frustrations out on a more slutty girl. Wood has an overbearing mother (Audrey Christie) who programs her daughter to think that only "bad girls" have lustful thoughts about men, while "good girls" resign themselves to the fact that they have to put up with sex after marriage simply to have kids -- not to enjoy it, or anything.

Both kids seem on the verge of insanity, and Wood eventually ends up in a "rest home." This is where things get a little murky. It's difficult to tell from today's stand point what we're supposed to think, exactly. It's hard to pin down the film's point of view. It takes place in the 1920s, it was made in the 1960s, and I'm watching it in 2010. How much of it is about 1920s attitudes and how much of it is about 1960s attitudes? Or, were those attitudes basically the same, if you are brutally honest? Are we supposed to believe these characters are a result of their environment and up-bringing, or are they the result of a writers' 1960s attitudes?

Here's the thing: on one hand, the movie is admirable for daring to deal with teenage sexuality, focusing in the first half on the dangers and frustrations of constantly making out. There are actual scenes where the kids discuss these issues with their parents. The film actually dares to admit women have sexual feelings, as well as guys. This was unheard of at the time.

On the other hand, in exploring these ideas, the plot seems to reinforce the same misguided ideals it should be railing against -- the audience is eventually asked to view the early scenes of sexual frustration as "the good old days" and view the present, where Beatty has settled down on the farm and Wood is on the verge of marrying a guy she's clearly not in love with, as the responsible alternative.

One thing I like about the movie is that it helps to dispel the myth that people were more innocent back in the olden days and you didn't get things like teenagers having sex, or abortions. If a writer in 1960 was writing about kids in 1920 going through these things, you can be sure it's nothing new.

Could it be -- lust is human nature?

Duh.